Recent Posts

Catherine Hakim, a professor of sociology at the London School of
Economics, has shattered the last great taboo of the workplace:
professional women should use their "erotic capital" — beauty,
sex appeal, charm, dress sense, liveliness, and fitness — to get
ahead at work.

And rather than believing old notions that beauty has only a
trivial, superficial value, women should change the way they use
the "beauty premium" and not be ashamed of using it to get ahead.

Professor Hakim, an expert on women's employment and theories of
female position in society, isn't the only one talking about
this. In the upcoming issue of HBR, our Synthesis column dives
into Hakim's
new book, and two others on the topic, to understand what
this concept means for managers.

Hakim argues that while we have no problem exploiting our other
advantages — money (economic capital), intelligence and education
(human capital), and contacts (social capital), women especially
still shirk from using erotic capital.

Why should that be? Women, she says, are more charming, more
graceful in social interaction, and have more social intelligence
than men, but they don't exploit those advantages. Men, on the
other hand, have no compunction about using every asset to get
ahead in their careers and have no embarrassment about reaping
the benefits. Hakim says women feel shy, embarrassed, and
ambivalent about admitting that they trade on their looks, and
for good reason given the prevailing attitudes: "Women who parade
their beauty or sexuality," Ms Hakim writes, "are belittled as
stupid, lacking in intellect, and other 'meaningful' social
attributes."

Yet, according to Hakim, the ''beauty premium'' is an important
economic factor in our careers, citing a US survey that found
good-looking lawyers earn between 10 and 12 per cent more than
dowdier colleagues. Moreover, she says, an attractive person is
more likely to land a job in the first place, and then be
promoted.

"Meritocracies are supposed to champion intelligence,
qualifications, and experience. But physical and social
attractiveness deliver substantial benefits in all social
interaction — making a person more persuasive, able to secure the
co-operation of colleagues, attract customers and sell products,"
she writes in
a column for a London newspaper.

Controversially, Hakim argues that the financial returns of
attractiveness now equal the returns of qualifications, with many
young women now believing that beauty is just as important as
education. And while she offers up Christine
Lagarde, managing director of the IMF as an exemplar of a
woman who exploits her intelligence, qualifications, and erotic
capital, she also champions Katie Price, a
British media personality and former model who has built a
successful career on her looks, an aspirational figure.

Here in the UK, Hakim's views are received with wry humour, with
one columnist going so far as to say that her book
should be read out to young girls as part of the national
curriculum. In France, Hakim's ideas are seen as little more
than common sense. The reception when the book debuts in the US
is likely to be quite different. An early interview in Slate exposes
Hakim's bracing opinions on discrimination, obesity, and the
harsh realities of life. And a recent
article in the New York Times points out that while being
good looking has its obvious advantages, there is another side to
the story, one of ugly prejudice and unspoken discrimination
against the less physically attractive or socially competent.
This can translate into real economic disadvantage, the author
says, citing one study that showed that an American worker
assessed as being in the bottom one-seventh in looks, earns on
average 10 to 15 per cent less per annum than a worker in the top
third.

So how complicit are we in all this? Do we naturally prefer to be
served by good-looking salespeople or be led by attractive
politicians? Do we naturally gravitate towards the most
attractive and charming people in the office? Is it just simple
common sense that those who work harder on their appearance,
fitness and social skills should be rewarded accordingly?

In my experience, there is a more complex picture at play than
Hakim presents. I have worked on newspapers where women have
played the "sex card" to spectacularly successful effect in their
careers, but I have also worked in other offices where flaunting
sex appeal would have meant instant career death. I have come
across male managers who have been shamelessly charming and
sexually obvious, while others have been branded as pathetic
"himbos." And I have watched as women have consciously downgraded
their looks and appearances, while their male have consulted
image experts or have undergone facelifts and hair transplants.

My view is that the beauty premium is quite culturally specific:
what works in one country, company, or culture doesn't always
transfer to another. But I think the basic premise is right: if
people can invest in education, training, qualifications and work
experience, why can they also not invest in themselves? In
Europe, especially France, Italy and Spain, it is accepted for
men and women to pay attention to their that attractiveness,
self-presentation, and grooming, and this is highly valued. One
of the most delightful companies I have ever worked for was a
luxury goods group where everyone, without exception, was
well-groomed, charming and flirtatious.

What is wrong with making the most of ourselves to get ahead at
work and in life? Surely watching our weight, going to the gym,
getting a good haircut and honing our social skills are obviously
a good thing? What do you think? Is exploiting erotic capital in
the workplace a good idea or a retrograde step? I am sure we will
have a lively debate!